Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the MPLS Open DT on in-stack indicators

gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com Fri, 06 August 2021 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93973A1AF7; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 15:22:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lJv00UQ5AlUJ; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 15:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxus.zteusa.com (mxus.zteusa.com [4.14.134.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0CA93A1AF2; Fri, 6 Aug 2021 15:22:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mse-us.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.36.11.29]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTPS id F3DE99FA8F76022B37FB; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 06:22:17 +0800 (CST)
Received: from mgapp02.zte.com.cn ([10.36.9.143]) by mse-us.zte.com.cn with SMTP id 176MMD9l099709; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 06:22:13 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com)
Received: from mapi (mgapp02[null]) by mapi (Zmail) with MAPI id mid81; Sat, 7 Aug 2021 06:22:12 +0800 (CST)
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2021 06:22:12 +0800
X-Zmail-TransId: 2afa610db614ab7eb5d0
X-Mailer: Zmail v1.0
Message-ID: <202108070622129564929@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <1cfaeafc-7d2c-7e04-c6e2-767feb6e8364@pi.nu>
References: 1cfaeafc-7d2c-7e04-c6e2-767feb6e8364@pi.nu
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com
To: loa@pi.nu
Cc: mpls@ietf.org, pals-chairs@ietf.org, mpls-chairs@ietf.org, detnet-chairs@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====_001_next====="
X-MAIL: mse-us.zte.com.cn 176MMD9l099709
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/m9IME3k2lgJS1OD51xcoev99S2c>
Subject: Re: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the MPLS Open DT on in-stack indicators
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2021 22:22:27 -0000

Hi Loa,

many thanks to all who contributed to the text. I have a suggestion and a comment to the following sentence:


GAL/GACH will only be an OAM or instrumentation tool and will not be used to carry meta-data with user-traffic.

As I understand how GAL/G-ACh (and ACH in PWs) have been used, I think that by OAM, we mean active OAM (per RFC 7799 classification of OAM measurement methods). I believe that it would be helpful to explicitly refer here to the active OAM and differentiate from, for example, IAOM, which is classified as a hybrid OAM method.

And to my comment. In PWs, using GAL is optional in PWs, MPLS-TP, and non-MPLS-TP (RFC 6423), and ACH can be used without GAL. It has been understood that all G-ACh channel types are also applicable to PW ACH (and vice versa). Let us be mindful of that when discussing the future use of GAL/G-ACh.








Regards,


Greg Mirsky






Sr. Standardization Expert
预研标准部/有线研究院/有线产品经营部 Standard Preresearch Dept./Wireline Product R&D Institute/Wireline Product Operation Division









E: gregory.mirsky@ztetx.com 
www.zte.com.cn



Original Mail



Sender: LoaAndersson
To: mpls@ietf.org;
CC: pals-chairs@ietf.org;mpls-chairs@ietf.org;DetNet Chairs;
Date: 2021/08/05 07:52
Subject: [mpls] Review and Consensus call on text from the MPLS Open DT on in-stack indicators


Working Group, MPLS Open DT,
 
The week before IETF 111 the Open DT met and agreed upon a text on  
"indicators". The terminology we use is that somewhere in the label  
stack there is an indicator tell the processing node that a specific  
packet needs a certain set of Forwarding Actions, for example some iOAM  
action might be required. To support the forwarding action there is  
often ancillary data with the packet.
 
The text the DT produced is about the indicators, a companion text on  
ancillary data will follow.
 
The text was discussed in the Joint meeting and reported to the MPLS  
working group at IETF 111. The Open DT itself can only propose, the text  
is therefore now sent out to the working group for review and consensus  
call.
 
The proposed text is found at:
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/mpls/wiki/2021-07-22-agenda
 
Please review the proposed text and comment on the MPLS wg mailing list  
(mpls@ietf.org).
 
We plan to keep the consensus call open until 2021-08-20.
 
/Loa
Open DT Co-ordinator / MPLS wg co-chair
 
 
--  
 
Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
 
_______________________________________________
mpls mailing list
mpls@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls